Boards

1) The general interpretation/consensus on twitter etc seems to be that it's Mohammed saying "all is forgiven" to Charlie Hebdo, but when I first saw it I took it to be the magazine saying that all is forgiven to Mohammed as he/Islam is also Charlie Hebdo (in the sense that the killers were just rogue nutjobs and not representative of the religion as a whole). So it's both attacking and defending Islam at the same time. There's a high possibility this ambiguity is deliberate of course.

2) A lot of people seem to be going out of their way to directly offend Muslims who had nothing to do with the attacks by posting and retweeting the image with glee and some weird sense of pride - including many of the usual bed wetting lefty brigade. I find this 'hmm, interesting...'.

Not sure about what I think of this but you often see comments about how depicting the prophet is just needlessly disrespectful and aggravating, but I can see how it us kind of principled in setting boundaries. If you believe it is wrong to depict the prophet that is fine, to expect fellow believers not to do it is also fine, to expect non believers not to do it is crossing a line why should they live by others beliefs, sure be offended and believe god will judge them harshly, but to react angrily and say you cannot do that is not fair. I know it seems trivial, why offend people over something as trivial as a cartoon, but it is a good entry point to the wider issue, as there are other kess trivial things that are bit allowed which should never be expected to apply beyond believers. I am not sure if I am completely comfortable with people offending others but I think I understand why people do it and don't think it is always purely out of disrespect it can be more principled

and I thought of Jerry Springer: the Opera (might be a bad comparison I haven't thought about it much).

That was something that was pretty controversial at the time, offended a bunch of people so there were protests (and maybe death threats?) etc but I don't remember the same discussions about freedom of speech and how it should be used. Yes, the Charlie Hebdo ones are more overtly racist if were doing a direct comparison but broadly similar.

I think it is maybe not the best example as there is a shared culture around monogamy and the chances are the third party subscribes to that too and would be angry if roles were reversed. A better example would be imagine there was a culture that had no conception if monogamy, would you expect them to abide by the standards of a monogamist culture? (I'm I guess I might actually, this is getting complicated...)

I never claimed that people don't know it is a breach of others rules or that they don't know it will offend, it's more about asserting their own rules and values. People who believe it is important to be critical of powerful things like religion without getting a fatwa laid on them. It is offensive but also defensive. Cartoons may seem trivial but it encapsulates a larger conflict.

I guess back to the analogy it would be like a cultural non-monogamist specifically trying to seduce monogamists partners to wind them up, which seems a bit out of order, but on the other side could be seen as a way of asserting their own important non-monogamist beliefs in the response to monogamists trying to forbid their non monogamy.

French people all base their opinions of other ethnicities on appearance and crass sterotypes. But then, what more do you expect from a bunch of slimy, cheese-eating, garlic-breathed, surrendery, condescending cheaters?

Personally I would have preferred a picture of the Earth and then depictations of , say. Jesus, Mohammed, The Buddha, Shiva etc and maybe the pope, the dalai lama, some other cheif clerics plus maybe christopher hitchens all holding hands around the earth (include african chinese brazillian kids and some innuits) and have the caption "nous somme le monde"

(I would of course like to copyright that :) the general gist of it, you cant get away by substituting a yanamani for an inuit) D

"...when the issue came up of the Danish cartoons I observed that the test I apply to something to see whether it truly is satire derives from HL Mencken's definition of good journalism: it should "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted". The trouble with a lot of so-called "satire" directed against religiously-motivated extremists is that it's not clear who it's afflicting, or who it's comforting."
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/will-self-charlie-hebdo-attack-the-west-satire-france-terror-105

but, I was thinking that I normally tend to be excitable and rush off to gawp at stuff (although I draw the line at looking at killings on internet) so I was kind of using my tendancy to overexcitability as a barometer

I do think that if we are going to bring in notions of prejudice and privilege into what we consider the "appropiate boundaries" of satire, then we should consider who is "afflicted" from outside our particular viewpoint on society. Of course Muslims are "afflicted" in the world; Muslims in Europe are seen as a political scapegoat, dragged through the mud by the tabloid press and the "dog-whistle" politics of the populist right.

But does not Islam "afflict" many Muslims in providing them with a "superstructure" to social oppression that constricts their chances and their opportunities in life, their freedom to practice the career they wish to, the freedom to express their sexuality et cetera?

Not sure i'm capable of really putting across a convincing argument, so apologies in advance. I believe in freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, etc, etc, but i don't believe in saying anything you want about anything you want, there's a difference there surely? I don't know if Islam should be any more protected than any other religion, but why stoke the fires (generally speaking)?

The most affecting reactions to the events in France this week haven't been these signs people are holding up, or these cartoonists ploughing on, but the words of the relatives of the policeman murdered. Do more images help unite people? I don't know. If i was, say, a young Muslim i'd probably think not.

Ach, fuck it, i'm going back to the football thread before somebody calls be a cunt.

The guardian had several writers giving thoughts on the cover. I found myself agreeing with bits of them all (difficult and nuanced subject etc.)

In particular, one such bit: 'At its core is the common misunderstanding in the west – that because all Muslim extremists hate depictions of the prophet, therefore all people who hate such depictions are Muslim extremists. The vast majority of Muslims object to these depictions but despise the terror attacks even more. So to retaliate against two terrorists by lashing out at potentially 1.6 billion people simply doesn't make sense.'

The depiction of Muhammad in the cartoon does not depict him in engaging in any lewd or offensive acts. He holds a sign and cries (and you can interpret that tear in different ways, but a tear perhaps for man's inhumanity to man in the name of his religion could be an interpretation). The depiction of what Muhammad is doing in the cartoon isn't offensive, it's quite a "humane" description if anything.

"I had this idea that I was stuck on: to draw my caricature of Mohammed, the one that had started all the chatter. And to do him holding a “Je Suis Charlie” sign. It made me laugh. It was my last-ditch effort. So I drew my little drawing, and I looked at his face, and it made me laugh. I saw this character who had been used in spite of himself by nut jobs who set shit on fire, by terrorists. Humorless assholes: That’s what these terrorists are. Of course everything is forgiven, my man Mohammed. We can overcome, because I managed to draw you. I showed my drawing to Richard Malka, then to Gérard Biard, and then we cried. Because we had it, a cover that looked like us, and that didn’t look like everyone else or like the symbols that have been imposed on us over the last few days. Not a cover with bullet holes, but just a cover that makes us laugh".

I think in the context of the words of another Charlie Hebdo cartoonist, Bernard Holtrop (who missed the editorial meeting where the killings occurred), that the cover's meant to have a certain absurdity and irony surrounding it - the irony that suddenly everyone's out batting for free speech, including many political leaders who aren't known for their support for the principle - imagine the absurdity of a religious leader/symbol such as Muhammad holding a "Je Suis Charlie" sign too.

it was after reading
"Remember folks, it's about freedom of speech and the right to offend everyone equally!"

It seemed to me that to point out that no country believes that they can allow ALL freedom of speech or ALL offense.......I took your comment (with its mention of 'equality', which was after mentioning the arrest of someone else for saying something) to be suggesting that there was some sort of hippocrasy for defending some free speech yet stifling other speech........
I thought Id just add that I didnt think that any authority has ever pretended that they think people should be able to say anything that they want.....what authorities/govs that 'support' free speech, mean is that 'they support some free speech'
I felt it was relevant (although perhaps a bit granny eggsucky)
Perhaps its not, I am older, I maybe subject to senility issues, they appear to be able to start at shockingly young ages.

I think that you may not have realised that the terrorist surname that he said he felt like was the terrorist that did the jewish mart killings, this combined with his anti jewish reputation might be enough to be considered to not be mild but extreme......just heard a bbc report on it and they failed to emphasise that the terrorist he identified was the one that killed jewish people......several people WOULD have made this link however and they would certainly push for him to be arrested for 'hate crime' and support for violence against jews (I hesitate to describe him as anti semitic as I believe that he is himself muslim and although I am unsure of his ethnic background, it might be very likely that he has semitic roots himself)

and Im glad that I have given no reason for you to think that I am now (If you recheck my post I explain that some people will have pushed for the arrest.....and I explain why people might not consider it mild)
I also know you are merely ribbing me, but you know I have to defend my position (to check myself to see if it is tenable, if nothing else)

So.........

In an ideal world we would not be constricted by rules.....however we are far fat far from that and will never achieve it.
There are rules that constrict us (wrongly) from persuing very reasonable and perfectly ok behaviours......i.e. they impose on out freedoms unfairly to a far greater degree than others..........for people to be able to be free from rules means that we would all need to shoulder the responsibility for creating a harmonious society.....people do not do this, so when I see people abusing a supposed freedom (of speech) that will probably result in a worse situation for many others through no fault of their own, then I am not so concerned about something being curtailed.

Freedo,m of speech that offends authorities and institutions and 'things' that oppress or hurts or threatens the future of 'us children of the Earth' should garner popular support to be defended.
Freedom of speech that is used to oppress or encourage attitudes or actions that are to the detriment of 'us, the children of the Earth' should not be so stoutly defended by 'us, the children of the Earth'.

If a group of people use freedom of speech as a shield to just slag off others and offend, without any justification of it being to bring down something that is ultimately hurting 'us, the children of the Earth' then we should not encourage or support this, although we should be careful that any rules or regulation banning this does not encroach and is not used as an excuse to prevent positive free speech by authorities (as there is always a danger (because positive free speech is often that which may be involved in being able to reveal negative aspects that power structures can have over 'us, the children of the Earth') that power structures may wish to preserve themselves and their power even if it is to (what they may regard as small) the detriment of 'us, the children of the Earth' (Im going to abreviate this to 'utcotE' from now on)

Sometimes (rarely) curtailment of 'freedom of the press' (for example) is not always to the progress of the benefit of 'utcotE' ....if the press is not free, (for instance) and the press is controlled by large powerful commercial 'things' that wish to influence the people to its (the power thing) benefit........often by destroying (unfairly) that which might be acting against 'big power things' but acting for the benefit of 'utcotE'.

Not sure of the relevance of this, police being over zealous and wrong (or maybe they just have to investigate complaints and will say there is no charge to face) doesn't undermine the principle to say things that offend others (phrased it this way as I still think offence is not always the motive but a known consequence). There obviously is a line where civil society has decided something crosses the harm threshold to be a crime and if this comedian had crossed it by inciting terrorism (which he hasn't) then it wouldn't be hypocritical to prosecute (if that's what you were getting at)

French comedian Dieudonne has been arrested for being an "apologist for terrorism" after writing a Facebook comment suggesting he sympathised with one of the Paris gunmen, a judicial source says.

Prosecutors had opened the case against him on Monday after he posted "Tonight, as far as I'm concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly" - mixing the popular slogan "Je Suis Charlie" used in homage to the journalists killed at magazine Charlie Hebdo, with a reference to gunman Amedy Coulibaly.

Paris state prosecutors opened a formal investigation on Monday night into remarks made by the comedian on his Facebook page after the vast “Republican march” in Paris on Sunday.
After mocking the media superlativies about the march, the comedian declared: “As for me, I feel I am Charlie Coulibaly”.

the journal:
Dieudonne made his controversial Facebook post after attending Sunday’s unity march against extremism. He described the march, considered the biggest rally in modern French history, as “a magical moment comparable to the big-bang”.

What do you think his status meant? I think it is impossible to take it as condoning what happened, the Charlie but negates that, I took it either to mean some sympathy with the experience of the terrorists that drove them to it (while not agreeing with it hence the Charlie), or expressing fear that he as a Muslim will be seen as a terrorist (more likely)

He is like Charlie Hebdo's antisemite mirror image, which is funny because he gets arrested and they don't.

Of course antisemitism is a bigger deal in france than being anti-arab or anti-muslim, and Dieudonne is black, so that might have something to do with it. Though CH were forced to sack one of their artists after an antisemitic cartoon.

was the who did the killings at the jewish mart (not the Charlie killer)

So combining his reputation for being anti jewish with saying he felt a bit like the terrorist that had killed 4 in a jewish mart, might have been considered to be close to be beyond the pale to some.......the fact that he conflated this terrorists name with 'Charlie' is confusing as I do not understand the exact nuance of what he was getting at by this (maybe Im overthinking, maybe it was throwaway/ill thought out) but that is probably also lost on many others too

which is irrelevant in relation to the rest of this thread the previous issue of CH is going for a small fortune on eBay which lead me to think if you happened to have a copy would you sell it completely without fear?